PROVING THINGS 105: BURDEN ON CLAIMANT TO PROVE A DEFECT: THE DIFFICULT TASK OF APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT ON APPEAL
I am grateful to Matthew Snarr for sending me a copy of the judgment, given yesterday, in Bond -v- Tom Croft (Bolton) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1290 QB. It contains an important observation about the burden of proof in establishing that…
EXPERTS AS ADVOCATES FOR THE CLAIMANTS’ CAUSE: WITNESSES WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS VERY DIFFERENT TO THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS
I am grateful to Dominic Regan for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews today in Gee -v- Depuy International Ltd [2018] EWHC 1208. The judgment is 762 paragraphs long and will be widely read by…
PROVING THINGS 99: THE ROLE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS: TRIAL JUDGE COULD PREFER VIEWS OF OTHER EXPERT
The opinion of a single joint expert is not binding on the court. This is clear from the judgment of Mr Justice Turner today in HJ v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 1227 (QB) “The opinion of a single…
PROVING THINGS 98: AN EASY AND OBVIOUS ROUTE TO REFUTE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE (WHICH WAS NOT DONE)
I am returning to the decision of Mr Justice Martin Spencer today in Lesforis v Tolias [2018] EWHC 1225 (QB). This time in the context of proving, or refuting, allegations of negligence. There was a simple route by which the defendant could have…
PROVING THINGS 95: OH… WHY A COMBATIVE EXPERT WITNESS NEVER HELPS: LEAVE ADVOCACY TO THE ADVOCATES…
Crown Office Chambers have a short post on their website that deals with the judgment in Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018. The post provides a link to the judgment itself. The judgment is another example of a…
PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY “WISHFUL THINKING”: £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)
The judgment of John Martin QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in London College of Business Ltd v Tareem Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 437 (Ch) is a prime example of a failure to prove damages. The claim was…
EXPERT WATCH: AN EXPERT WHO “SIGNALLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH HIS BASIC DUTIES AS AN EXPERT”
Brilliant though it is the Secret Barrister’s book has not tempted me to write about criminal law. However it is always worthwhile keeping a weather eye on the behaviour and conduct of experts. Problems with experts are very similar across…
EXPERTS: THE JOINT REPORT AND THOSE TROUBLESOME “AGENDAS”
There are several passages in the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in David John Saunders -v- Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB) that highlight a common problem with joint reports. That is the problematic “agenda”. A …
THE SHORTER TRIAL SCHEME: PROCEDURAL WRANGLING AND PROBLEMATIC EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT CAN’T BE BRUSHED ASIDE
In the judgment today in L’Oréal Société Anonyme RN Ventures Ltd [2018] EWHC 173 (Pat) Mr Justice Henry Carr set out his concerns on aspects of the procedure and expert evidence before the court. The judgment contains some lessons for litigators…
EXPERT REPORTS SHOULD BE EXCHANGED CONCURRENTLY: THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN A CAR HIRE CASE: WHEN EVIDENCE CAN AMOUNT TO A SKELETON ARGUMENT
The decision of District Judge Glen in Kansal -v- Tang (31st January 2017, County Court at Slough) is available on the DWF website. It says a lot about “expert” evidence about hire rates. In particular the judge’s comment that evidence…
“SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH”: FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT
In Cleare v The Attorney General & Ors (Bahamas) [2017] UKPC 38 the Privy Council was scathing of the method of fact finding of the trial judge. The judge erred in failing to consider the significance of medical evidence. ” It…
CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEW OF 2017 (III): EXPERTS: SNEAKINESS, DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS, ARROGANCE AND NO CONCEPT OF THE DUTY OWED TO THE COURT
There have been plenty of interesting cases on experts this year. Here are a few select cases. ATTEMPTS TO SNEAK EXPERT EVIDENCE IN There have been a number of cases where parties have attempted to “disguise” expert evidence. Teva UK…
HOT TUBBING OF EXPERTS: NEW PRACTICE DIRECTION
The 93rd Update on Practice Direction Amendments also introduced a change in the rules as to concurrent evidence from experts. This gives the trial judge a considerable degree of flexibility about the way in which expert evidence is heard. These rules came…
WITNESSES WHO ARGUE THE CASE AND EXPERTS WHO ACT AS ADVOCATES: THIS IS NOT GOING TO HELP …
In British Telecommunications Plc v Office Of Communications [2017] CAT 25 the Competition Appeal Tribunal commented on two of the central evidential issues of much commercial litigation: witnesses who give much commentary and “argue” the case; experts who act as advocates. …
NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE “BEYOND” THE 11th HOUR NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED IN THE TCC
In DPM Property Services Ltd v Emerson Crane Hire Ltd [2017] EWHC 3092 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson overturned a decision giving a counterclaiming defendant permission to rely upon an expert report on quantum shortly before trial. The case is an example…
FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: A JUDGE MAKES THE FINDINGS FIRST AND CONSIDERS THE EXPERT EVIDENCE NEXT
In Graham & Anor v Campfield & Anor [2017] EWHC 2746 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss made some important observations about findings of fact and expert evidence. It shows the importance of primary findings of fact and the limitations of expert evidence. …
THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: HANDWRITING EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE : THE JUDGE FELT HE WAS IN SAFE HANDS
The judgment of Mr Justice Jay in ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd [2017] EWHC 2438 (QB) is one that has already made headlines. There is much of interest. However, that part of the judgment that deals with the analysis of…
EXPERT REPORTS: “CONTENTIONS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PURSUED AT ALL”
In Maximov v Open Joint Stock Company “Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat” [2017] EWHC 1911 (Comm) Sir Michael Burton (sitting as a High Court Judge) commented on the expert evidence in relation to Russian law. The fact that an expert made concessions…
WHEN ONE EXPERT TELLS THE OTHER EXPERT TO “GO BACK TO SCHOOL”: CASES ON CONDUCT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS
The case of Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017)* highlights some of the issues that arise in the meeting of experts. The meeting is an important stage in many types of action, however the case law and rules relating to it…
AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS “EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE”: THIS DOESN’T END WELL
Problems caused by expert witnesses feature heavily on this blog. I am grateful to barrister Brian McCluggage for sending me a copy of the decision of Her Honour Judge Belcher in Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017) which contains robust…
EXPERT WITNESS GIVEN “NO WEIGHT AT ALL”: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There are some interesting passages in the judgment of David Stone (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Technomed Ltd & Anor v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2142 (Ch). Here we look at the judgment…
PROVING THINGS 65: : ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE: (IF THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE TO ASK FOR THE MATTER TO BE MADE SIMPLE YOU ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE)
The case of Ted Baker Plc & Anor v Axa Insurance UK Plc & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 4097 could serve as a parable of modern litigation. The claimant won the first trial on this matter, establishing the defendant insurers were…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: WHEN PART OF THE EVIDENCE IS “ABSURD” – THIS IS NO SMALL BEER
I am grateful to barrister Simon Mills for sending me a copy of the judgment of Judge Waksman QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in BHL -v- Leumi ABL Limited [2017] EWHC 1871 (QB). Here I look at…
ERRANT EVIDENCE AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT GOES MISSING: CLAIMANT’S EXPERTS FEEL THE HEAT
I am returning for the fifth time to the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC). We have seen the judge’s views on the witnesses, the claimant’s disclosure and arguments that…
BUNDLES WERE A DOG’S DINNER: MISSING WITNESSES AND AN EXPERT WITH NO CONCEPT OF HIS DUTY TO THE COURT
The judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Bank of Ireland -v- Watts Group PLC [2017]EWHC 1667 (TCC) exemplifies many of the issues in litigation that are regularly covered in this blog: bundles, missing witnesses and errant experts. In particular…
JUDGES, FACT FINDING AND GRENFELL: THE CRUCIAL QUESTION – IS THIS JUDGE A GOOD FACT FINDER
If you write a blog on civil procedure it is not hard to steer a course away from the issues of the day. However there is one issue of the day that is hard to ignore. The criticisms of the…
EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS EXPERT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF EXPERT
In Condor Vilca & ors -v- Xstrata Limited [2017] EWHC 582 (QB) Mr Justice Stuart-Smith rejected an application that a party disclose its previous expert evidence when it needed to change its choice of expert. The reason for the change…
EXPERTS NOT WELLCOME HERE (NOT YET ANYWAY): PARTIES NEED TO ESTABLISH NEED FOR EXPERT EVIDENCE
In Glaxo Wellcome Uk Limited -v- Sandoz Limited [2017] EWHC 1524 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh refused the defendants’ application to rely on three expert witnesses. The judgment contains interesting observations on the nature of the information that needs to be…
INSTRUCTING EXPERTS: FAILURE TO HAVE CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES COMPOUNDS THE PROBLEMS
In Astex Therapeutics Limited -v- Astranzenca AB [2017] EWHC 1442 (Ch) Mr Justice Arnold considered lengthy and complex issues in relation to compounds. However even in a case of such complexity the evidence of the experts should have been more…
EXPERTS AND EVIDENCE: WHEN THE CASE GETS PIECED TOGETHER ON THE EVE OF THE TRIAL
In the course of a very detailed judgment today in a clinical negligence case Mr Justice Langstaff made some important observations about expert evidence. He observed that late evidence may lead to costs consequences. Given that the whole rationale of…
WHEN IS AN EXPERT NEEDED? NOT HERE
CPR 35. imposes a duty on the court to restrict expert evidence “Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings”. This has led to some interesting case law. The most recent discussion is…
COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONSIDERS THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE SINGLE JOINT EXPERT
We have already looked at the decision in Perry -v- Raleys Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 314 in the context of the award of interest. The decision also contains important observations about evidence and the way in which the courts approach…
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, INTERRUPTIONS AND HOT TUBBING: JUDICIAL LATITUDE IS NOT UNLIMITED
In Shaw -v- Grouby [2017] EWCA Civ 233 the Court of Appeal made some observations about the dangers of a judge getting too inquisitorial in the course of a trial, particularly in the course of cross-examination. “The judge intervened in…
PLEADINGS, FACTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: EXPERT SHOULD NOT “USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT”
There is an interesting discussion of the purpose of pleadings and expert evidence in the judgment of HH Parkes QC in PP -v- The Home Office [2017] EWHC 663 (QB). The fact that an expert report is referred to in…
EXPERT WITNESSES: RARELY TOTALLY IMPARTIAL BUT SOME ARE LESS PARTIAL THAN OTHERS
There is a short passage in the judgment of His Honour Judge Hacon in Edward Lifesciences -v- Boston Scientific 2017] EWHC 405 (Pat) (03 March 2017) that encapsulate the issues surrounding the assessment of expert evidence. “Rarely, if ever, is an…
EXPERTS AND THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE: DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO RELY ON EXPERT ALSO USED BY CLAIMANT
In Wheeldon Brothers Waste Limited -v- Millennium Insurance Company Limited [2017] EWHC 218 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson allowed the defendant to rely on an expert that had also been instructed by the claimant. The circumstances are unusual and the case needs…
TRIAL JUDGE’S REJECTION OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: IF AN EXPERT KNOWS A PARTY THEY SHOULD SAY SO
In EXP -v- Barker [2017] EWCA Civ 63 the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s rejection of the evidence of an expert witness. “the starting point is to identify what the judge decided. He considered that the witness had…
EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY ON AN QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION: SNEAKING EXPERT EVIDENCE INTO WITNESS STATEMENTS: EVIDENCE IS STRUCK OUT
We have seen several examples of litigants attempting to give “expert” evidence in their witness statements. This practice was considered by Master Matthews in Change Red Limited -v- Barclays Bank PLC [2016] EWHC 3489 (Ch). The Master was considering whether…
PROVING THINGS 48: VALVES, FLOODS, MODELS AND CAUSATION.
If ever there were an object lesson in the need to prove every element of an action it is the judgment of HH Judge McKenna (sitting as a High Court judge) in Oldcorn -v- Southern Water Services Ltd [2017] EWHC. The…
EXPERT WATCH II: ATTEMPTS TO SNEAK THE EVIDENCE IN
There are some examples of ingenious attempts to introduce expert evidence into cases. Mr Justice Arnold commented on this in his judgment in Teva UK Ltd -v- Gilead Sciences Inc [2017] EWHC 13 (Pat). A “factual” report from an expert is…
EXPERT WATCH: SOURCE OF INFORMATION CLARIFIED (AND OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE)
There are aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Palmer -v- Nightingale [2016] EWHC 2800 (TCC) that justify closer examination. In particular the source of information of the expert’s information was illustrative. It highlights the importance of examining…
PROVING THINGS 46: LATE THEORIES ADVANCED BY EXPERTS RARELY HELP
Some aspects of litigation are highly reliant upon experts. Medical causation is on of those areas. The issues between experts should be clarified in the joint statement. In Smith -v- Tesco PLC & Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2016]…
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS IN PATENT CASES: SHOULD BE SHORT AND FAIR
In his judgment today in Merck Sharp and Dhome Limited -v- Shionig & Co Limited [2016] EWHC 2989 (Pat) Mr Justice Arnold made some observations about the cross-examination of expert witnesses. These related to experts in patent cases, they are…
THE DANGER OF NOT REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANTS (& THE NEED FOR CO-OPERATION WHEN INSTRUCTING EXPERTS)
The judgement of Chief Master Marsh in UPL Europe Limited -v- Agchemaccess Chemicals Limted [2016] EWHC 2898 (Ch) provides an object lesson in the dangers of failing to reply to correspondence. The judgment also contains important observations about need for…
IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD WRITE A BOOK ON EXPERTS…
There have been many occasions on this blog where I have commented on expert evidence. The links below show many cases where experts have caused major problems (usually for the party instructing them). There are numerous reports of cases where…
THE DANGERS OF RELYING ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: BEWARE YE THE PARTISAN EXPERT: "UNBALANCED AND HIGHLY MISLEADING"
Some types of litigation are heavily reliant upon expert evidence. Clinical negligence cases are often determined by the judge’s assessment of the experts involved. It is disturbing to see the matters raised in judgment today of His Honour Peter Hughes…
WHAT IS MEANT BY AN "INDEPENDENT" EXPERT? CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK III
In Hopkinson -v- Hickton [2016] EWCA Civ 1057 the Court of Appeal considered what was meant by an “independent” expert. KEY POINTS The fact that a valuer, appointed to value a property by the parties under the terms of a…
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN LAWYER AND EXPERT: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK II
We have already looked at the decision of Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman [2016] CAT 21 in relation to costs budgeting. Here I want to isolate one aspect of that budgeting exercise – in relation to…
EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK 1
In Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca -v- Xstrate Limited [2016] EWHC 2757 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett refused an application to rely on an expert witness. The case was unusual, however the principles are universal. The questions were whether there was an…
ANOTHER EXPERT WITNESS GOES AWRY: PATENTLY A PROBLEM
It is easy for the non-technical reader to pass over judgments relating to patents. These often involve highly technical issues. However there is one aspect of the judgment in Thoratec Europe Limited -v- AIS GMBH Aachen Innovative Solutions [2016] EWHC…